Talk:Oakland City Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.	Architecture Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] Article Neutrality

This article seems to have a negative tone instead of a neutral tone to it. Miskatonic 20:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I stamped the Oakland City Center page with a "disputed neutrality" message (or rather someone beat me to it). However important its points might be, the article as written is flagrantly unobjective. The City Center is what it is, its construction and planning's effects are what they are, and the public policies that led to it were what they were, but, in Wikipedia, it's up to the reader to form an opinion, not the writer to persuade. Describe the City Center's characteristics, talk about its historical context (e.g., Urban Renewal), and explain the positive and negative effects (if any of either), but let the reader do his/her own critical thinking. Michael Patrick 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. I know how it should be writen and have changed it twice this week to a more neutral point of view. It then gets reverted back within a day. Miskatonic 00:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me open by saying I'll be self editing some details of this article. But other parts of it must remain. I'm sorry guys, but I have written about a long held perception of City Center by native Oaklanders. The opening paragrahs about the re-development are historical, factual information that should be a part of any serious discussion of the complex. I'm not sure how long YOU have lived in Oakland, but you might want to do a little research, go down to the Oakland Public Library and discover for yourself about the conquest that this project is. Alternatively, you can bury your head in the sand and revert to some rosy little advertisement that the originial article was. Let's be clear about this, you are a little slow on the uptake if you think that original article was anything but a commercial real estate advertisement placed by the current landlord or his kingsmen. Read carefully, between the lines, "however government payrolls were not affected," in other words, "recessions or not, you'll always have a steady stream of bureaucrats to buy smoothies if you lease a restaurant space here." Gimme a break. 70.199.102.193Broadway Joe, Downtown Resident

I don't have a problem with a long winded article about the city center. I happen to enjoy the city center and at the same time be part of the SF Art Deco society. My problem is that this article is bias in every single way. It needs to move to a neutral point of view. The way it is writen now is nothing more then a rant. If you are going to write a rant do it in your own space. The wikipedia is not a place to rant about how much you hate the city center. Miskatonic 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

~~ "I happen to enjoy the city center" It is clear that you have a point of view/bias of your own, so who is right, who is wrong? I could just as easily say the original article has its own angle. Isn't it self-evident that it was an advertisement/public relations piece? You don't think so? A girlfriend of mine sells cars out on the auto row, why don't you walk onto her lot as an "up" and let her have her way with you. While were at it, how would you like to own the Bay Bridge pal? 70.199.102.193Broadway Joe, Downtown Resident

The difference here is that Miskatonic's "bias" is not strewn all across the master article, while 70.199.102.193's is. The master article is not the place to describe what should be but simply what is. The "what is" could include a mention that a difference of opinion exists, but it should not be a persuasive argument one way or the other. As a side note, if anyone has valid issues with the planning of the Oakland City Center, some of that should go into the discussion of urban renewal, eminent domain, redevelopment, et al, as the City Center is not an isolated example of such practices. Michael Patrick 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

70.199.102.193I should qualify this article with the point that is only an overview of the history and perception of City Center. Addtional reasearch into the project will reveal specific details of the actual property tax incentives, favor sessions, and other aspects of corporate welfare the developers recieved that are not featured in this article. I might point out that this kind of brokering is going on right now behind closed doors with many projects in the pipeline in Oakland. I invite anyone to write about these aspects of the history of the complex. If you think I am the only one down on the ground here in Oakland and elsewhere that doesn't regard City Center with kid gloves, you are sadly ignorant and mistaken. Broadway Joe, Downtown Oakland Resident

Wear your adult gloves while writing letters to the Tribune or East Bay Express editors, but don't publish them on Wikipedia. Michael Patrick 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article, as it is written currently, is not neutral. While the oppinions spoken may or may not reflect the reality of the situation, they should not be stated as facts unless there are sufficient references and citations of documented proof. I.E. the phrase "Oakland's own version of the Dalit (outcaste), the "untouchable" homeless"" is not a neutral statement. Homeless people being "Oakland's own version of the Dalit" is not a fact, just an oppinion. A more appropriate way of stating this would be to provide a link to an official written policy published by the Shorenstein Company stating that it is against their policy for the homeless, the mentally ill and high school students to be allowed on their property. If they have not made this their official policy, than it is conjecture, and does not belong in a WikiPedia article. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to have a separate article on the "Criticisms" against The Shorenstein Company or against Oakland City Center. - E.H. (a homeless Oakland resident) June 25, 2006

[edit] The facts are there they just need to be neutral.

This article is getting to a more neutral point of view but still needs work to get to Wikipedia standards.

The facts about the rent a cops and the police activity are correct. No matter who you are if you want to be harrassed by a rent a cop or the police the city center is the place to go. That area is to some extent hostile to everybody. It is difficult when you have been told to leave the area for no reason at all but the facts reguarding the city center need to be presented in a neutral way. Miskatonic 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Had a few blue ices on the rocks, made, some changes, I do think this article now reflects a variety of perceptions. Whomever wants a boring, "just the facts, mam" article that doesn't really give a good journalistic, probative feel of the place...well I pity your confined and uncreative sensibilities. I wonder what kind of bland crap is sitting in your fridge right now. 70.198.166.63 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Broadway Joe

No one reads an encyclopedia for anything more than "just the facts" (except in the case of Uncyclopedia). We don't open an Encyclopedia Britannica to read a "guest commentary," do we? Michael Patrick 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of the World Book? Remember those door to door clowns? Never mind, the thing is, most of us don't "open an encyclopedia" anymore. On the one hand this is one of the new internet encyclopedias, if not the new internet encyclopedia. On the other hand, because it is edited by a variety of users, it is a living document. In the same light, because it is new, we have a legitimate chance to redfine what "all around education" really is. Remember, Oakland's privately owned and operated "City Center" property sits in the heart of a big city with big city problems, City Center is a bastion of "odd" in many ways. I live a few blocks down the street, and I'm sincerly attempting to give you some all around education about City Center's history and its place in the larger frame of Oakland. I challenge you to tell me the original advertisement of an article that someone wrote here, was more educational than the current article. If you take the time to research the property, I think you'll find that article left out too many facts to be taken seriously. 70.198.20.149Broadway Joe March 14, 2006

Do you wish not to see advertisement on Wikipedia? Reread your own writing and tell us plainly that it is not advertisement, that is, of your personal point of view on government and public policy. Who's your favorite politician? If I mention on his/her Wiki page things he/she has done that have historic/cultural/social significance, unadmirable or not, I'm doing what Wikipedia asks of us. If I insert text saying he/she is a fool, I'm doing what you're doing. The fact that neighborhood investors were forced out by eminent domain is relevant; speculation (see sentence on wet tile and liability) and your own little architectural and social critiquing is irrelevant here. Michael Patrick 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The facts are fine. Facts are what wikipedia is about. Don't color the article with your opinion. Either follow the wikipedia guidelines or don't submit. Miskatonic 15:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)